VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Leicester Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set the fair market rent for a Leicester property at £103.32 per week after considering comparable rental values in the area and applying the government's rental increase formula.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord must determine a fair market rent for a property in accordance with the Housing Act 1988 sections 13 & 14.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent at which the dwelling house might reasonably be expected to be let by a willing landlord under similar conditions.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property based on comparable evidence and government formula.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent of a property at £103.32 per week, including service charges, based on comparable evidence and government formula.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: BIR/OOFN/MNR/2025/0736

Property : 160a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [NAME]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of application : 3rd April 2025

Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] of Decision : 9th March 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £103.32 per month with effect from 7th April 2025. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 23rd January 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £105.57 per week (including £17.22 Service Charge) in place of the existing rent of £98.02 (including £11.99 Service Charge) to take effect from 7th April 2025.

2. On 3rd April 2025, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of a remote video hearing, the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and online research.

Evidence

4. A remote video hearing was held. The Tenant did not attend the hearing The Landlord did attend the hearing. The Tribunal has considered the oral submissions made at the hearing by the Landlord and the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

5. From the information provided it appears that the property comprises of a self-contained ground floor flat with one living room, kitchen, one bedroom and bathroom. The property is assumed to be double glazed and have gas fired central heating. The carpets, curtains and white goods are provided by the tenant.

6. There are understood to be shared gardens.

7. Based on the information provided the Tribunal understands that the Service Charge is calculated as follows:

Communal Electricity and Lighting £5.32 Communal Fire Safety Maintenance £9.65 Administration Charge £2.25 Total £17.22

8. At the hearing and in the written submissions the parties made the following submissions:

9. The tenant submits that he has been charged for services such as tree maintenance and grass cutting which have never been provided. It appears to the Tribunal that the Tenant is not objecting to the level of rent, but only to the level of service charge. The Tribunal also noted that tree maintenance and grass cutting were not included in the schedule of services for which the Tenant was being charged.

3 10. At the hearing the Landlord submitted that it had checked that the level of rental increases since 2017 were in line with the Government Formula and was satisfied that the increases had been properly applied.

11. However, the Landlord conceded that the Tenant had long standing and ongoing issues with the service charge. In light of this the Landlord had reviewed the way services were charged to the Applicant and decided to change the basis of service charges so that the Applicant and his neighbour would be charged separately from the remainder of the properties on the development. This, the Landlord felt was fairer to the Applicant.

12. The Landlord submitted that as a result of this review, a Property Manager had visited the Applicant and explained the proposed changes to him. This would include the cancellation of all service charge arrears and a revised rental including a reduced service charge amount.

13. The proposed new rental was £103.32 per week made up of £88.35 in occupational rent and £14.97 services. Tribunal was informed by the Landlord that this was acceptable to the Tenant.

14. The Tribunal therefore considered the written submissions made by both parties and the oral submissions of the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation

15. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be the sum of £103.32 per week inclusive of £14.97 per week services. This is based on the Government Formula for rental levels and the revised service charges explained by the Landlord at the hearing.

Decision

16. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the market, subject to the social housing parameters by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £103.32 per week including £14.97 per week service charge. As the Landlord had confirmed that all outstanding service charge arrears were being written off, the Tribunal determined that in fairness to both parties the new rental level should be determined from 7th April 2025 being the date on the Landlords Notice.

Chairman: [NAME]: 9th March 2026

4 APPEAL PROVISIONS

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

5

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 160a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £103.32 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 7th April 2025

3. The amount included for services is/is not applicable £14.97 Per Week

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 27th April 1998 5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises A self-contained ground floor flat comprising living room, kitchen, one bedroom and bathroom. Double glazing. Central heating. Shared gardens.

[NAME] of Decision 9th March 2026

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No.

BIR/OOFN/MNR/2025/0736

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The rent must be set according to a fair market rate based on comparable properties.
  • The new rent must be reasonable and supported by evidence of similar properties.
  • A landlord's proposed rent increase must reflect the property's actual condition.
  • The rent must be assessed against current market conditions and any tenant liabilities.
  • A tenant is entitled to have their rent set according to the social housing 'rent standard' formula.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal determined the fair market rent for a property to be £103.32 per week.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over rental prices.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable evidence and government formula for rental levels.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The landlord's submission regarding the fair market rent based on government formula and comparable evidence was crucial.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

It was in favour of the tenant, as the service charge arrears were written off.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it if they believe it's unfair and provide evidence to support their claim.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rental values, government formula, and service charge details were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal on points of law can be made to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.